How can an act "frown on something". They are normally quite black and white in explaining what is required, particularly if accompanied by regulations.
My style of wording there. You are correct in the Act can be black and white. But it can also be down to interpretation of said act which is what I was trying to allude to.
As a general rule, if someone's disability is not immediately apparent, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a provider of a service to require some evidence (provided it is requested in a way which is not embarrassing or demeaning for the individual concerned), before providing whatever adaption to the normal service is required.
And my emphasis in Bold is exactly what I was getting at. I can think of many examples where someone might take offence to this of find such a question embarrassing. It is worth remembering that those with Anxiety or perhaps ASD's could find such a question difficult to deal with. Personal Disabilities to one side I know for fact that some would rather pay the full price for something they are entitled to at a lesser cost, because of the stress it causes them on being required to "prove it"
That being said I have attended 2 different chain aquarium locations in the
UK▸ . One issued the concessionary ticket without any proof being required on a good faith basis. The other however took the line
despite proof that and I quote: I wasn't disabled enough
This poked a very sore nerve and a very interesting debate ensued to this one. Because what gives someone the right to pass judgement on someone they've made eye contact with for all of 90 seconds? My personal view is no right whatsoever. Whilst the staff member in question may have a relative who has a severe disability. It does not excuse someone from saying the above in the manner they did. Disability can be a very sore subject for some. For example: Epilepsy, Autism, Involuntary Incontinence, Diabetes, Crohns Disease, Schizophrenia, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder etc are all predominately hidden disabilities. To say "You aren't disabled enough" some may find flattering. But if you struggle day in and day out with any of the above, then such a comment can seriously upset someone. For me at the time, having 5 of those listed above, it made me rather angry. I am an open book on my problems but I know others are not.
In the end I was given the discount and a future free entry after the manager came down to resolve the situation. Fortuitously, 2 members of the public (who I had never met before) chimed into the conversation to confirm the staff member did in fact say what she did as per my quote. With now 4 people saying to the manager what was said + 2 third party bystanders it was clear that the manager and his colleague had some explaining to do.
I also received a written apology from the centre. However my personal view is that it should never have happened in the first place. Needless to say I probably won't be in a hurry to visit that particular centre any time soon!
In the case in point, otherwise what would now stop every teenager trying to take a bike on board a bus and saying "I'm disabled, can't walk more than 20 metres".
If the teenager boarded with a
ENCTS▸ Pass then benefit of the doubt perhaps on that one? If a Young Person has an ENCTS Card then they don't have it because they're over 60 put it that way... The bus company in the case point however is making it easier for the young chap in question by removing the element of a debate on what is a walking aid. That is my understanding of it however.
This might be particularly true when the extent to which the provision for the disability could be seen to confer an advantage over the normal service provided. Here's an example. A family of 4 turns up at Alton Towers, and states that one of the children is disabled to the extent that they cannot walk or stand for more than 10 minutes without difficulty. There is no obvious sign of this disability. Does the Theme Park agree to put them to the front of each queue, and if so, do they ask for some proof of the disability before doing so, as this adjustment to the normal service would confer a large advantage to the family? This isn't a hypothetical example by the way, I know a family where this is the case, and they turned up prepared with evidence.
I've done something to this degree at Alton Towers too. Where the queues for some rides were in excess of 60 minutes. At the time of the visit I had to use the bathroom approximately every 60 minutes (and today still occasionally have to do so) which would always lose my place in the queue. So I would never be able to get on any rides. Again in good faith I was willing to prove this but no proof was ever required.
This is always going to be a difficult problem. I personally feel that if someone says they require that entry then it should be issued on good faith. The way I try and do it nowadays is offer the proof before asking for the product. Because it removes the element for a dispute
OR, more importantly, the anxiety on the staff member on how exactly to ask for the proof. However there are those who will abuse the system. However I think to knowingly ask for a concessionary product without entitlement is a rather low thing to do on it's own.
Also, nothing personal in the above and no offence taken. I have friends with disabilities to various degrees so I always try and take a broader sense of the subject in such a discussion
I am going to pass comment on this in an existing thread in Frequent Posters soon; after something I witnessed on the train yesterday... You may already see where I am going with this one
